I've just read through the entire thread on "What should be done about illegal immigrants?", and as I expected, almost no facts were present, just a lot of opinions - and you know what they say about butts and opinions - everyone's got one and they are full of...

So, instead, I present you a basis for consideration. I will be so nice as to summarise after listing the videos below:

In summary, there are characteristics of those immigrating from the south which are adverse to a modern society, built on small government:- they have an average IQ of 89- they use welfare disproportionately- they are inclined to be pro-big-government (statist, socialist, democrat)- they introduce the difficulty of a language barrier, that taxes public services, such as schooling- they are all rapists (even the children and the babies) (this is a joke, btw).

So, they don't improve the society (low IQ), they tax the society (welfare), and they vote for the same failed systems they are running from (part of the reason low IQ people should not vote).

What I am conveying here is, we don't want this sort of immigration. So, how do you stop it? You must create consequences for illegal immigration which are so severe, the consequences deter the crime (that's the general notion behind punishment).

First, you must recognise some facts- there is no obligation on the US Gov to treat them humanely (the constitution gives rights to citizens, not everyone in the world or on US ground).- the notion that we must provide for them is just as insane as the notion we must provide for starving africans or starving chinese or starving indians.

Imprisonment is feasible in for-profit, private prisons. That is to say, we don't want more government prisons that will only serve to cost tax payers more. There are, however, private prisons that manage to turn a profit on the labor of prisoners. So, it would be possible to set up a new private prison system specific for non-citizen illegals to serve some period (5 years, perhaps), for breaking the law by entering the country. If the national's country protests, have the national's country pay for their release and deportation. And, after the illegal serves his time, deport him.

Now, if that doesn't work, we can always neuter them, send them to syria, or force them to watch Hillary Clinton speeches.

You might ask, what about the children that come over with their mothers. I understand your dilemma, and I too have that quandary: the hard choice between soylent green and child labor. I do think I have a solution here that can kill 2 birds with one stone.

Take a portion of the profits made from the free illegal-immigrant-labor prison system and build adjacent schools, and ship all the bad public school teachers (nearly all of them) over to teach the kids. The kids won't learn anything, but at least we'd have two of the classes of leeches on society occupied and paid for.

At 7/28/2016 2:59:24 AM, capob wrote:I've just read through the entire thread on "What should be done about illegal immigrants?", and as I expected, almost no facts were present, just a lot of opinions - and you know what they say about butts and opinions - everyone's got one and they are full of...

So, instead, I present you a basis for consideration. I will be so nice as to summarise after listing the videos below:

In summary, there are characteristics of those immigrating from the south which are adverse to a modern society, built on small government:- they have an average IQ of 89- they use welfare disproportionately- they are inclined to be pro-big-government (statist, socialist, democrat)- they introduce the difficulty of a language barrier, that taxes public services, such as schooling- they are all rapists (even the children and the babies) (this is a joke, btw).

So, they don't improve the society (low IQ), they tax the society (welfare), and they vote for the same failed systems they are running from (part of the reason low IQ people should not vote).

What I am conveying here is, we don't want this sort of immigration. So, how do you stop it? You must create consequences for illegal immigration which are so severe, the consequences deter the crime (that's the general notion behind punishment).

First, you must recognise some facts- there is no obligation on the US Gov to treat them humanely (the constitution gives rights to citizens, not everyone in the world or on US ground).- the notion that we must provide for them is just as insane as the notion we must provide for starving africans or starving chinese or starving indians.

Imprisonment is feasible in for-profit, private prisons. That is to say, we don't want more government prisons that will only serve to cost tax payers more. There are, however, private prisons that manage to turn a profit on the labor of prisoners. So, it would be possible to set up a new private prison system specific for non-citizen illegals to serve some period (5 years, perhaps), for breaking the law by entering the country. If the national's country protests, have the national's country pay for their release and deportation. And, after the illegal serves his time, deport him.

Private prisons are one the single stupidest ideas that have ever happened. They need to be abolished completely.

Now, if that doesn't work, we can always neuter them, send them to syria, or force them to watch Hillary Clinton speeches.

You might ask, what about the children that come over with their mothers. I understand your dilemma, and I too have that quandary: the hard choice between soylent green and child labor. I do think I have a solution here that can kill 2 birds with one stone.

Take a portion of the profits made from the free illegal-immigrant-labor prison system and build adjacent schools, and ship all the bad public school teachers (nearly all of them) over to teach the kids. The kids won't learn anything, but at least we'd have two of the classes of leeches on society occupied and paid for.

You should have posted in that thread, but just about everything you said is wrong. Immigrants use welfare LESS than US natives, they're MORE entrepreneurial than US natives, and they have HIGHER labor participation rates than US natives.

At 7/28/2016 2:59:24 AM, capob wrote:I've just read through the entire thread on "What should be done about illegal immigrants?", and as I expected, almost no facts were present, just a lot of opinions - and you know what they say about butts and opinions - everyone's got one and they are full of...

So, instead, I present you a basis for consideration. I will be so nice as to summarise after listing the videos below:

In summary, there are characteristics of those immigrating from the south which are adverse to a modern society, built on small government:- they have an average IQ of 89

That is why they are fill low skill labor roles, much needed rolls. Would you rather have 120 I doctor immigrants roofing houses?

- they use welfare disproportionately- they are inclined to be pro-big-government (statist, socialist, democrat)- they introduce the difficulty of a language barrier, that taxes public services, such as schooling- they are all rapists (even the children and the babies) (this is a joke, btw).

So, they don't improve the society (low IQ), they tax the society (welfare), and they vote for the same failed systems they are running from (part of the reason low IQ people should not vote).

What I am conveying here is, we don't want this sort of immigration. So, how do you stop it? You must create consequences for illegal immigration which are so severe, the consequences deter the crime (that's the general notion behind punishment).

First, you must recognise some facts- there is no obligation on the US Gov to treat them humanely (the constitution gives rights to citizens, not everyone in the world or on US ground).

Yes we do have an obligation to treat non citizen people humanely.

- the notion that we must provide for them is just as insane as the notion we must provide for starving africans or starving chinese or starving indians.

We do have a notion that we provide to starving Africans. In fact we give millions to African countries for AIDS.

Imprisonment is feasible in for-profit, private prisons. That is to say, we don't want more government prisons that will only serve to cost tax payers more. There are, however, private prisons that manage to turn a profit on the labor of prisoners. So, it would be possible to set up a new private prison system specific for non-citizen illegals to serve some period (5 years, perhaps), for breaking the law by entering the country. If the national's country protests, have the national's country pay for their release and deportation. And, after the illegal serves his time, deport him.

That is just silly to pay room and board for 11 million people.

Now, if that doesn't work, we can always neuter them, send them to syria, or force them to watch Hillary Clinton speeches.

You might ask, what about the children that come over with their mothers. I understand your dilemma, and I too have that quandary: the hard choice between soylent green and child labor. I do think I have a solution here that can kill 2 birds with one stone.

Take a portion of the profits made from the free illegal-immigrant-labor prison system and build adjacent schools, and ship all the bad public school teachers (nearly all of them) over to teach the kids. The kids won't learn anything, but at least we'd have two of the classes of leeches on society occupied and paid for.

You miss the entire boat on illegal immigration. The fact is that during the recession illegal immigration dropped significantly. This is because if there are not jobs there is high risk to come in illegally. Fill low skilled jobs with legal labor and the level of illegals drops and becomes enforceable without blowing trillions of dollars.

At 7/28/2016 12:29:31 PM, Semiya wrote:Private prisons are one the single stupidest ideas that have ever happened. They need to be abolished completely.

Hey look, an opinion without any facts.

immigrants use welfare LESS than US natives, they're MORE entrepreneurial than US natives, and they have HIGHER labor participation rates than US natives.

Not only is what you are saying counterfactual, it is counterfactual to the facts I have presented in the first post, which you are responding to.And so, I can either conclude that you are extremely ignorant, or that you are a troll.

Either way, please stop communicating with me and stop replying to my topics.

At 7/28/2016 12:29:31 PM, Semiya wrote:Private prisons are one the single stupidest ideas that have ever happened. They need to be abolished completely.

Hey look, an opinion without any facts.

You're the troll who thinks a YouTube video is a valid source. It's beyond obvious why it's a terrible to have a business model based on locking people up. It greatly increases severity for sentences regardless of whether its merited, greatly increases retributive punishments for minor crimes, keeps people in slave-like conditions, and those are only the tip of the iceberg.

immigrants use welfare LESS than US natives, they're MORE entrepreneurial than US natives, and they have HIGHER labor participation rates than US natives.

Not only is what you are saying counterfactual, it is counterfactual to the facts I have presented in the first post, which you are responding to.

At 7/28/2016 12:30:16 PM, slo1 wrote:That is why they are fill low skill labor roles, much needed rolls. Would you rather have 120 I doctor immigrants roofing houses?

It appears you did not watch the videos. Your extreme example essentially underlines the fact you are either insane or a troll. We already have many people of <110 IQ that could fill labor jobs, as shown by the decreasing labor participation rate (http://data.bls.gov...). And, before you say this is a result of baby boomers: (http://www.bls.gov...).

Yes we do have an obligation to treat non citizen people humanely.

I suppose this depends on the definition of humane. If you mean "characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, especially for the suffering or distressed", you would need to provide proof, otherwise you are just trolling my thread. If you mean humanely as in avoiding inhuman treatment, then you would be correct, but that doesn't omit my labor-prison idea.

We do have a notion that we provide to starving Africans. In fact we give millions to African countries for AIDS.

Are you intentionally being obtuse? I said "the notion we must provide" - the key word being must.

That is just silly to pay room and board for 11 million people.

You've managed to completely ignore my point that the illegals would be paying for themselves by working in labor camps. This is the nature of 'for-profit', but I suppose you are unfamiliar with that notion.

You miss the entire boat on illegal immigration. The fact is that during the recession illegal immigration dropped significantly. Fill low skilled jobs with legal labor and the level of illegals drops and becomes enforceable without blowing trillions of dollars.

You bring up a good point about recession and labor demand, but this does not address those already here (who do not self-deport proportionately to their ingress during recessions). And, we already have a law that makes hiring illegals illegal. The concept of "fill low skilled jobs with legal labor" does nothing to the effecting of such, and is therefore not a solution. If you have a solution on how to effect the concept, that would be something to post, but it still doesn't address welfare use and the other burdens of the existing illegal immigrants

At 7/28/2016 2:39:03 PM, Semiya wrote:You're the troll who thinks a YouTube video is a valid source.

You are literally posting on a topic I created where I have told you that you are not welcome, and you are calling me the troll. Separately, the video references all the data used, and presents tons of charts made from that data. The youtube video is a presentation, not a source.

1. the cato study compares extremely poor whites vs extremely poor immigrants. If you don't see how this is rather meaningless, well...Most illegal immigrants from the south are poor. If you had a bunch of extremely poor whites immigrating from the south, I would similarly not want them to come in. The issue is, the southern immigrants (legal, eventually legal, and illegal) use welfare at a higher rate relative to the native population.Again, I will try to convey to you the meaning. It is like saying, compared to natives of IQ < 80, the immigrants of IQ < 80 are more productive. I'm comparing immigrants to the whole native population, not a politically purposeful subset.

2. If you read the new republic article, not only does it arbitrarily go between illegal and legal immigrants, it conflates/mixes southern immigrants with all immigrants. Asian immigrants are remarkably productive.

So again, please stop communicating with me. I will not continue to communicate with you since you have only proved to continuously provide misinformation and misdirection.

At 7/28/2016 12:30:16 PM, slo1 wrote:That is why they are fill low skill labor roles, much needed rolls. Would you rather have 120 I doctor immigrants roofing houses?

It appears you did not watch the videos. Your extreme example essentially underlines the fact you are either insane or a troll. We already have many people of <110 IQ that could fill labor jobs, as shown by the decreasing labor participation rate (http://data.bls.gov...). And, before you say this is a result of baby boomers: (http://www.bls.gov...).

Yes we do have an obligation to treat non citizen people humanely.

I suppose this depends on the definition of humane. If you mean "characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, especially for the suffering or distressed", you would need to provide proof, otherwise you are just trolling my thread. If you mean humanely as in avoiding inhuman treatment, then you would be correct, but that doesn't omit my labor-prison idea.

We do have a notion that we provide to starving Africans. In fact we give millions to African countries for AIDS.

Are you intentionally being obtuse? I said "the notion we must provide" - the key word being must.

That is just silly to pay room and board for 11 million people.

You've managed to completely ignore my point that the illegals would be paying for themselves by working in labor camps. This is the nature of 'for-profit', but I suppose you are unfamiliar with that notion.

You miss the entire boat on illegal immigration. The fact is that during the recession illegal immigration dropped significantly. Fill low skilled jobs with legal labor and the level of illegals drops and becomes enforceable without blowing trillions of dollars.

You bring up a good point about recession and labor demand, but this does not address those already here (who do not self-deport proportionately to their ingress during recessions). And, we already have a law that makes hiring illegals illegal. The concept of "fill low skilled jobs with legal labor" does nothing to the effecting of such, and is therefore not a solution. If you have a solution on how to effect the concept, that would be something to post, but it still doesn't address welfare use and the other burdens of the existing illegal immigrants

I'm not trolling anyone or anything. You can't just walk in and say you want to put illegal immigrants in labor camps. If you don't understand why that is outlandish then I have no business on this thread. I respectfully retract everything I have posted. Have a good day and remember I was never here.

Perhaps you were exaggerating out of emotion in regards to doctors of IQ 120 doing labor.

You can't just walk in and say you want to put illegal immigrants in labor camps. If you don't understand why that is outlandish then I have no business on this thread. I respectfully retract everything I have posted. Have a good day and remember I was never here.

It is outlandish, and it is comical. None the less, I appreciate your retraction and your vanishing.

I understand a few of you think my labor camps and soylent green idea was a little too extreme. Perhaps you are right, so I have come up with another idea.

What about a televised, youtubed, pay-per-view escape from LA ongoing series. We can watch immigrants and liberals battle it out in what will likely be the most one sided battle in history (inherently effeminate liberals vs rugged immigrants). Whoever wins, the country is guaranteed to be better off!

At 7/28/2016 12:29:31 PM, Semiya wrote:You should have posted in that thread, but just about everything you said is wrong. Immigrants use welfare LESS than US natives, they're MORE entrepreneurial than US natives, and they have HIGHER labor participation rates than US natives.

At 7/28/2016 12:29:31 PM, Semiya wrote:You should have posted in that thread, but just about everything you said is wrong. Immigrants use welfare LESS than US natives, they're MORE entrepreneurial than US natives, and they have HIGHER labor participation rates than US natives.

That's only true for legal immigrant; illegals are the problem.

No, lol. Illegal immigrants are only a particular problem insofar as their entry is not controlled.

If legalization regulations were loosened so that an equivalent amount could come here legally, the most important problems created by immigration would continue.

20 million Guatemalans immigrating to Finland would be bad, whether they arrived legally or not. Though the latter is somewhat worse.

At 7/28/2016 12:29:31 PM, Semiya wrote:You should have posted in that thread, but just about everything you said is wrong. Immigrants use welfare LESS than US natives, they're MORE entrepreneurial than US natives, and they have HIGHER labor participation rates than US natives.

That's only true for legal immigrant; illegals are the problem.

No, lol. Illegal immigrants are only a particular problem insofar as their entry is not controlled.

If legalization regulations were loosened so that an equivalent amount could come here legally, the most important problems created by immigration would continue.

20 million Guatemalans immigrating to Finland would be bad, whether they arrived legally or not. Though the latter is somewhat worse.

And...?

I never said legal immigration couldn't become a problem. Though illegals are the biggest problem of immigration in the US, as we tend to get a fair share of criminals in the Mexican illegal immigrant demographic.

I never said legal immigration couldn't become a problem. Though illegals are the biggest problem of immigration in the US, as we tend to get a fair share of criminals in the Mexican illegal immigrant demographic.

The comparatively higher crime rates of illegal immigrants aren't the "big issue" concerning them. In the US, the "big issues" immigration causes come from legal immigration as much as illegal.

At 7/28/2016 2:59:24 AM, capob wrote:I've just read through the entire thread on "What should be done about illegal immigrants?", and as I expected, almost no facts were present, just a lot of opinions - and you know what they say about butts and opinions - everyone's got one and they are full of...

So, instead, I present you a basis for consideration. I will be so nice as to summarise after listing the videos below:

In summary, there are characteristics of those immigrating from the south which are adverse to a modern society, built on small government:- they have an average IQ of 89- they use welfare disproportionately- they are inclined to be pro-big-government (statist, socialist, democrat)- they introduce the difficulty of a language barrier, that taxes public services, such as schooling- they are all rapists (even the children and the babies) (this is a joke, btw).

So, they don't improve the society (low IQ), they tax the society (welfare), and they vote for the same failed systems they are running from (part of the reason low IQ people should not vote).

What I am conveying here is, we don't want this sort of immigration. So, how do you stop it? You must create consequences for illegal immigration which are so severe, the consequences deter the crime (that's the general notion behind punishment).

First, you must recognise some facts- there is no obligation on the US Gov to treat them humanely (the constitution gives rights to citizens, not everyone in the world or on US ground).- the notion that we must provide for them is just as insane as the notion we must provide for starving africans or starving chinese or starving indians.

Imprisonment is feasible in for-profit, private prisons. That is to say, we don't want more government prisons that will only serve to cost tax payers more. There are, however, private prisons that manage to turn a profit on the labor of prisoners. So, it would be possible to set up a new private prison system specific for non-citizen illegals to serve some period (5 years, perhaps), for breaking the law by entering the country. If the national's country protests, have the national's country pay for their release and deportation. And, after the illegal serves his time, deport him.

Now, if that doesn't work, we can always neuter them, send them to syria, or force them to watch Hillary Clinton speeches.

You might ask, what about the children that come over with their mothers. I understand your dilemma, and I too have that quandary: the hard choice between soylent green and child labor. I do think I have a solution here that can kill 2 birds with one stone.

Take a portion of the profits made from the free illegal-immigrant-labor prison system and build adjacent schools, and ship all the bad public school teachers (nearly all of them) over to teach the kids. The kids won't learn anything, but at least we'd have two of the classes of leeches on society occupied and paid for.

This is just so wrong, I don't have the will to deal with it. However, tell you what I will do. I will debate you on it. Take your best point, and build a debate.

At 7/28/2016 2:59:24 AM, capob wrote:So, instead, I present you a basis for consideration. I will be so nice as to summarise after listing the videos below:

Cool, skipped 'em.

In summary, there are characteristics of those immigrating from the south which are adverse to a modern society, built on small government:

Justify your claim.

- they have an average IQ of 89

First, http://www.theatlantic.com...It's a short article, but informative on a few levels. Read it.Second, how is this relevant in any way to their value to society?

- they use welfare disproportionately

This is misleading. They use welfare disproportionately because they are disproportionately poor, not because they disproportionately don't work. Don't forget that many calculations of welfare include things like free and reduced lunch programs at school, or Medicaid, and so on and so forth. http://economy.money.cnn.com...

- they are inclined to be pro-big-government (statist, socialist, democrat)

This is far more because of identity politics (Would you vote for a party whose leader has called your race full of rapists?) than any "asking for hand-outs", but I don't see what difference this makes.

- they introduce the difficulty of a language barrier, that taxes public services, such as schooling

Evidence/reason we can't easily solve this one?

- they are all rapists (even the children and the babies) (this is a joke, btw).

Typically, jokes are supposed to be funny.

So, they don't improve the society (low IQ),

See above.

they tax the society (welfare),

For one, https://newrepublic.com...Even the most conservative legitimate estimate I've found was Vox Day estimating that legal immigrants at the worst did not take jobs from native Americans, and that each illegal immigrant took away a quarter of a job. Don't remember the source; someloser, help me out here. Of course, that ignores that immigrants usually take the low-income, gritty jobs that no one else wants to do.

and they vote for the same failed systems they are running from (part of the reason low IQ people should not vote).

"Failed systems" is a matter of opinion, but suffrage should absolutely not be limited on any quality except citizenship (and age). But, the onus is on you to show that it should be, so I'll let you speak.

First, you must recognise some facts- there is no obligation on the US Gov to treat them humanely (the constitution gives rights to citizens, not everyone in the world or on US ground).

There is in fact an obligation, in so far as that they should not be tortured, killed or anything like that. But I suspect that's not what you mean, so let's move on.

- the notion that we must provide for them is just as insane as the notion we must provide for starving africans or starving chinese or starving indians.

I agree, mainly because that caricatures many good, honest people as beggars only looking as a handout. Immigrants are not that.

Imprisonment is feasible in for-profit, private prisons. That is to say, we don't want more government prisons that will only serve to cost tax payers more. There are, however, private prisons that manage to turn a profit on the labor of prisoners. So, it would be possible to set up a new private prison system specific for non-citizen illegals to serve some period (5 years, perhaps), for breaking the law by entering the country. If the national's country protests, have the national's country pay for their release and deportation. And, after the illegal serves his time, deport him.

This is cruel and unusual, and goes against their human rights. You are essentially advocating for forced labor on the backs of people who have given up the life they knew and attempted to escape violence, poverty, and who knows what else.

Now, if that doesn't work, we can always neuter them, send them to syria, or force them to watch Hillary Clinton speeches.

Hillary's DNC speech was actually very good, but I digress. This is morally reprehensible.

You might ask, what about the children that come over with their mothers. I understand your dilemma, and I too have that quandary: the hard choice between soylent green and child labor. I do think I have a solution here that can kill 2 birds with one stone.

Take a portion of the profits made from the free illegal-immigrant-labor prison system and build adjacent schools, and ship all the bad public school teachers (nearly all of them) over to teach the kids. The kids won't learn anything, but at least we'd have two of the classes of leeches on society occupied and paid for.

Okay, never mind, this post has to be a practical joke. I refuse to believe this is serious.

On a relevant note to crime, I'll repost this from a post I made months ago:The link between immigrants and crime is shaky. Illegal immigrants do commit a lot of crime--out of an estimated 11.4 million illegals, about 2.9 million crimes were committed from 2003 to 2009 (http://www.theatlantic.com...). The misleading part of that statement is that it ignores that criminal illegals commit an average of 7 crimes (ibid, see the GAO source). That's a pretty low actual number of immigrants committing crime, and given that about 500,000 of those offenses were immigration related, and 500,000 were drug-related, you can start to see how granting amnesty and securing the border is not an unreasonable plan in the slightest. Meanwhile, legal immigrants are no more, or perhaps less (depending on whose math you trust) violent than natives.

Bailey <3

"For often evil men are rich, and good men poor;
But we will not exchange with them
Our virtue for their wealth, since one abides always,
While riches change their owners every day." - Solon, Plutarch's "Life of Solon"

In summary, there are characteristics of those immigrating from the south which are adverse to a modern society, built on small government:

Justify your claim.

Watch the videos or read the transcripts.

- they have an average IQ of 89

First, http://www.theatlantic.com...It's a short article, but informative on a few levels. Read it.Second, how is this relevant in any way to their value to society?

Wow, that article is quite bad and apparently agenda driven.

From the article:

Turkheimer's findings make perfect sense once you recognize that IQ scores reflect some varying combination ...., For less advantaged kids, though, test scores say more about the environmental deficits they face than they do about native ability.

Even if we say the average of 89 came from taking the lowest SES individuals, this only accounts for a 7 point IQ difference when compared to the highest SES (http://humanvarieties.org...).

This is misleading. They use welfare disproportionately because they are disproportionately poor, not because they disproportionately don't work. Don't forget that many calculations of welfare include things like free and reduced lunch programs at school, or Medicaid, and so on and so forth. http://economy.money.cnn.com...

It's in no way misleading. I was apparently comparing americans vs southern immigrants. The interpretation that what I was saying was "american poor take less welfare than southern immigrants" is unfounded.

This is far more because of identity politics (Would you vote for a party whose leader has called your race full of rapists?) than any "asking for hand-outs", but I don't see what difference this makes.

Trump said:

"When Mexico (meaning the Mexican Government) sends its people, they"re not sending their best. They"re not sending you (pointing to the audience). They"re not sending you (pointing again). They"re sending people that have lots of problems, and they"re bringing those problems to us. They"re bringing drugs.They"re bringing crime. They"re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people!"

Here, a basic understanding of english gives us the conveyance that Mexico is sending illegal immigrants which include rapists (http://fusion.net...). If you can't interpret that correctly, I think I'm going to have a hard time communicating with you.

- they introduce the difficulty of a language barrier, that taxes public services, such as schooling

Evidence/reason we can't easily solve this one?

Are you intentionally being obtuse? Of course you can teach someone english, and of course you can add a translator to all government services, but that costs money.

- they are all rapists (even the children and the babies) (this is a joke, btw).

Typically, jokes are supposed to be funny.

Really? You've made it half way to my asking you never to communicate with me.

For one, https://newrepublic.com...Even the most conservative legitimate estimate I've found was Vox Day estimating that legal immigrants at the worst did not take jobs from native Americans, and that each illegal immigrant took away a quarter of a job. Don't remember the source; someloser, help me out here. Of course, that ignores that immigrants usually take the low-income, gritty jobs that no one else wants to do.

I already negated that article. Read the thread.

Imprisonment is feasible in for-profit, private prisons. That is to say, we don't want more government prisons that will only serve to cost tax payers more. There are, however, private prisons that manage to turn a profit on the labor of prisoners. So, it would be possible to set up a new private prison system specific for non-citizen illegals to serve some period (5 years, perhaps), for breaking the law by entering the country. If the national's country protests, have the national's country pay for their release and deportation. And, after the illegal serves his time, deport him.

This is cruel and unusual, and goes against their human rights. You are essentially advocating for forced labor on the backs of people who have given up the life they knew and attempted to escape violence, poverty, and who knows what else.

Please tell me how imprisonment, with the normal expectation of work, as a consequence of breaking the law, is cruel and unusual?

In summary, there are characteristics of those immigrating from the south which are adverse to a modern society, built on small government:

Justify your claim.

Watch the videos or read the transcripts.

I like arguing. I do not like arguing enough to watch 1 hour and 26 minutes about it. Sorry.

- they have an average IQ of 89

First, http://www.theatlantic.com...It's a short article, but informative on a few levels. Read it.Second, how is this relevant in any way to their value to society?

Wow, that article is quite bad and apparently agenda driven.

Even if we say the average of 89 came from taking the lowest SES individuals, this only accounts for a 7 point IQ difference when compared to the highest SES (http://humanvarieties.org...).

First, I repeat--tell me how this is relevant to their value in society.Second, that's only half the point. Environment extends beyond the simplified metric of SES. It is not only the amount of money someone makes, but also the quality of their education, and so on. For example, a poor kid in New Hampshire can still get a fantastic education at one of the wonderful public schools. A poor kid in the inner city cannot.

This is misleading. They use welfare disproportionately because they are disproportionately poor, not because they disproportionately don't work. Don't forget that many calculations of welfare include things like free and reduced lunch programs at school, or Medicaid, and so on and so forth. http://economy.money.cnn.com...

It's in no way misleading. I was apparently comparing americans vs southern immigrants. The interpretation that what I was saying was "american poor take less welfare than southern immigrants" is unfounded.

What? That's not what I was saying at all. I was saying that the welfare system is not just for people who don't work; it is for those who make less money, and includes things like school lunch. I presume your point was that immigrants are "moochers", but that's just patently false.

Just tell me what's up. I've read plenty on the subject, and I've got things to do. No offense.

This is far more because of identity politics (Would you vote for a party whose leader has called your race full of rapists?) than any "asking for hand-outs", but I don't see what difference this makes.

Trump said:"[insert "they're rapists" shtick here]Here, a basic understanding of english gives us the conveyance that Mexico is sending illegal immigrants which include rapists (http://fusion.net...). If you can't interpret that correctly, I think I'm going to have a hard time communicating with you.

Do you honestly expect that there will be a zero percent crime rate among immigrants? The burden of proof is on you to show that Mexicans are significantly more criminal.

- they introduce the difficulty of a language barrier, that taxes public services, such as schooling

Evidence/reason we can't easily solve this one?

Are you intentionally being obtuse? Of course you can teach someone english, and of course you can add a translator to all government services, but that costs money.

And? The onus is on you to prove that this would be a significant drain on the US economy, compared to the taxes that immigrants pay into the system.

- they are all rapists (even the children and the babies) (this is a joke, btw).

Typically, jokes are supposed to be funny.

Really? You've made it half way to my asking you never to communicate with me.

Whoa, chill out. Never said it makes you less of a person; I just said that it isn't funny. It's nothing personal.

For one, https://newrepublic.com...Even the most conservative legitimate estimate I've found was Vox Day estimating that legal immigrants at the worst did not take jobs from native Americans, and that each illegal immigrant took away a quarter of a job. Don't remember the source; someloser, help me out here. Of course, that ignores that immigrants usually take the low-income, gritty jobs that no one else wants to do.

I already negated that article. Read the thread.

I saw your response to it. I saw no rebuttal. If you'd like to substantiate, please do.

[imprison illegals and make them work and turn a profit for us]

This is cruel and unusual, and goes against their human rights. You are essentially advocating for forced labor on the backs of people who have given up the life they knew and attempted to escape violence, poverty, and who knows what else.

Please tell me how imprisonment, with the normal expectation of work, as a consequence of breaking the law, is cruel and unusual?

You would be imprisoning illegal aliens with the express purpose of forced labor. Do I really need to answer this question?

Bailey <3

"For often evil men are rich, and good men poor;
But we will not exchange with them
Our virtue for their wealth, since one abides always,
While riches change their owners every day." - Solon, Plutarch's "Life of Solon"

The article is clearly in regards to southern border immigration- (the article photo)-" deport undocumented immigrants en masse, end birthright citizenship, and build a wall along the Mexican border just got some new ammunition."

And yet, it quotes ""In one estimate, immigrants earn about $240 billion a year, pay about $90 billion a year in taxes, and use about $5 billion in public benefits,""

In attempt to confuse the benefit of H1B immigrants with southern border immigrants.

I can only surmise from this that you are a very crafty troll.

And, I read from you

Whoa, chill out. Never said it makes you less of a person; I just said that it isn't funny. It's nothing personal.

And it becomes clear, you are definitely a troll. Please stop communicating with me and stop posting on my topics.

." Fill low skilled jobs with legal labor and the level of illegals drops and becomes enforceable without blowing trillions of dollars."

There are plenty of citizens here who have low skills who need jobs..Many of them lack experience or a favorable employment history, or they are a color discriminating employees prefer not to hire.Because the laws regarding immigration are not enforced, when an employer needs a low paid worker ,he will hire illegals instead of the lazy, overpaid, overfed American workers, who still hav'nt been able to get a job.

There are plenty of citizens here who have low skills who need jobs..Many of them lack experience or a favorable employment history, or they are a color discriminating employees prefer not to hire.Because the laws regarding immigration are not enforced, when an employer needs a low paid worker ,he will hire illegals instead of the lazy, overpaid, overfed American workers, who still hav'nt been able to get a job.

Tell that to the farmers who hire seasonal workers to pick produce. They will hire anyone who can bend over and keep a level of productivity. You bring up good points, however the premis remains. Fill low skill jobs with legal labor and there will be nothing for an illegal to come over for.

If you want to spend money on finding and persecuting people who discriminate against legal blacks who are trying to get hired for these jobs go ahead. If you want to increase enforcement of current laws and find companies who intentionally hire illegals that is fantastic.

But don't you see that when you decide that you want to round up 11 million current illegals the funding and resources needed to pull that off takes away from needed long term solutions. I estimated at one point that would be a half trillion dollars to round and deport 11 million. That doesn't include the social costs such as splitting families or finding foster homes for legal children. It is also probably ineffective because it does not address filling low skill jobs with legal labor.

Need to understand funding and resources are limited. Until we fill low skill jobs with legal labor illegals will find a way to fill them.

Need to understand funding and resources are limited. Until we fill low skill jobs with legal labor illegals will find a way to fill them.

We have to be much smarter to fix this problem.

The smarter approach is to enlist the liberal whacko troops to enforce minimum wage on slave agriculture, which will force illegals to compete with Americans for those jobs. Illegals won't stand a chance at landing those jobs then.

Crying about how much the Trump wall is going to cost is like a heroin addict complaining about how much the needles cost.

At 7/31/2016 4:13:37 PM, slo1 wrote:If you want to spend money on finding and persecuting people who discriminate against legal blacks who are trying to get hired for these jobs go ahead. If you want to increase enforcement of current laws and find companies who intentionally hire illegals that is fantastic.

I thought you were supposed to have vanished. None the less, you wouldn't spend the money to round up every one of them, that is wasteful. You would do what has been done frequently, by giving incentives to turn oneself in. That is, you can have a one year period where anyone who turns themselves in gets some reduced punishment, and after that year, the punishment becomes increasingly worse, and still worse for those who are found out not having turned themselves in.

And, combine this sort of punishment system with removing anchor babies, by correctly interpreting the law surrounding them, you'll stop illegal immigration pretty quickly. Drugs is another issue. And, it would seem to me that having drone patrol for drugs, which would become the majority of illegal border traffic, would be more financially feasible and effective than a wall.

Or, perhaps, you could just stop the drug war and deincentivise the financial side of drugs that causes them to be imported illegally.

Need to understand funding and resources are limited. Until we fill low skill jobs with legal labor illegals will find a way to fill them.

We have to be much smarter to fix this problem.

The smarter approach is to enlist the liberal whacko troops to enforce minimum wage on slave agriculture, which will force illegals to compete with Americans for those jobs. Illegals won't stand a chance at landing those jobs then.

Why would you an anti liberal advocate raising the min wage. Obviously you put people in the jobs with the needed skill set willing to work for the going market wage. Right now the only people stepping up to work them are illegals.

If you are unwilling to create a low skill visa program or raise wages to attract labor you will just be chasing your tail as illegals flood the country to fill those jobs.

Need to understand funding and resources are limited. Until we fill low skill jobs with legal labor illegals will find a way to fill them.

We have to be much smarter to fix this problem.

The smarter approach is to enlist the liberal whacko troops to enforce minimum wage on slave agriculture, which will force illegals to compete with Americans for those jobs. Illegals won't stand a chance at landing those jobs then.

Why would you an anti liberal advocate raising the min wage. Obviously you put people in the jobs with the needed skill set willing to work for the going market wage. Right now the only people stepping up to work them are illegals.

If you are unwilling to create a low skill visa program or raise wages to attract labor you will just be chasing your tail as illegals flood the country to fill those jobs.

Because I would rather give the shaft to entry level AMERICAN workers if it means our country will no longer have to deal with the INVASION of immigrants.In this case, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, even if he happens to be a whackjob Bernie supporter of the policy of 15 dollars an hour to pick fruit off a tree.

Crying about how much the Trump wall is going to cost is like a heroin addict complaining about how much the needles cost.